2021年9月15日 星期三

On Tech: Smartphones may be too good

Smartphones have been so successful that it's possible new technology won't be able to displace them.

For Times Subscribers

View in browsernytimes.com
New York Times logo
Technology

September 15, 2021

Newsletter Notice

Beginning next week, the On Tech newsletter will be available only to Times subscribers. Subscribe to The Times to continue receiving it.

A selection of our newsletters will soon be reserved for Times subscribers. Subscribe now for $1/week for access to Times journalism and all of our newsletters — to follow your interests and discover new ones.

Smartphones may be too good

Smartphones have been so successful that it's possible new technology won't be able to displace them.

Aaron Lowell Denton

I'm going to pose an intentionally provocative question: What if smartphones are so successful and useful that they are holding back innovation?

Technologists are now imagining what could be the next big thing. But there may never be anything else like the smartphone, the first and perhaps last mass market and globally transformative computer.

I may wind up looking like a 19th-century futurist who couldn't imagine that horses would be replaced by cars. But let me make the case that the phenomenon of the smartphone may never be replicated.

First, when people in technology imagine the future, they're implicitly betting that smartphones will be displaced as the center of our digital lives by things that are less obvious — not slabs that pull us away from our world but technologies that are almost indistinguishable from the air that we breathe.

Virtual reality goggles are bulky annoyances now, but the bet is that tech like V.R. or computers that can "learn" like people will eventually blur the line between online and real life, and between human and computer, to the point of erasure. That's the vision behind the "metaverse," a broad vision that virtual human interactions will be as complex as the real thing.

Perhaps you're thinking that more immersive and human-ish technologies sound intriguing, or maybe they seem like the woo-woo dreams of kooks. (Or maybe a little of both.) Either way, technologists must prove to us that the future they imagine is more compelling and useful than the digital life that we already have thanks to the magical supercomputers in our pockets.

The challenge for any new technology is that smartphones succeeded to the point where it's hard to imagine alternatives. In a sales boom that lasted about a decade, the devices transformed from a novelty for rich nerds to the only computer that billions of people around the world have ever owned. Smartphones have succeeded to the point where we don't need to pay them much notice. (Yes, that includes the incrementally updated iPhone models that Apple talked about on Tuesday.)

The allure of these devices in our lives and in technologists' imaginations is so powerful that any new technology now has to exist almost in opposition to the smartphone.

When my colleague Mike Isaac tried Facebook's new model of glasses that can snap photos with a tap on the temple, a company executive said to him: "Isn't that better than having to take out your phone and hold it in front of your face every time you want to capture a moment?"

I get the executive's point. It's true that devices like the Apple Watch, Facebook's glasses and Snap's Spectacles are clever about making features of smartphones less obtrusive. Companies including Facebook, Snap and Apple are also working on eyewear that — like the failed Google Glass — aims to combine digital information like maps with what we see around us.

The comment also shows that any new consumer technology will have to answer the inevitable questions: Why should I buy another gadget to take photos, flip through cycling directions or play music when I can do most of that with the smartphone that's already in my pocket? Do I need to live in the metaverse when I have a similar experience in the rectangular screen of my phone?

Smartphones are unlikely to be the apotheosis of technology, and I am curious to see the development of technologies that want to move away from them. But at least for now, and maybe forever, most technologies for our daily lives are supplements to our phones rather than replacements. These tiny computers may be so darn handy that there will never be a post-smartphone revolution.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Reminder: This newsletter will soon be reserved for Times subscribers.

Your access to the On Tech newsletter ends next week. Subscribe now to keep receiving it and to enjoy all the benefits of being a Times subscriber.

Before we go …

  • Should you buy a new phone now? In a recent column, my colleague Brian X. Chen walked through the questions to ask if you're thinking about swapping your smartphone for a fresh model: Can you repair what makes your phone annoying rather than replace it? Can you still get software updates with the existing model? How would a new phone change your life?
  • We wanted flying cars and we got an $850 robot vacuum that steers around dog doo: To build the latest Roomba, the company "built over 100 physical models of pet droppings, and trained algorithms on over a hundred thousand images to get the device to avoid crap," The Washington Post writes. Also, the robots collect a lot of data from inside your home. (The Roomba is still confused by black striped carpet, though.)
  • "It's a startlingly dark show, and that's on purpose." This is a thought-provoking essay about a new streaming video series focused on a TikTok-famous family that humanizes the people who are thrust into social media celebrity.

Hugs to this

Check out these video clips from a nest of barred owls in Indiana. Baby owls learning to fly really are the cutest things.

Enjoy this newsletter? Subscribe to keep receiving it.

We've reserved a selection of newsletters, including this one, for Times subscribers. Subscriber support ensures that we have the resources to deliver original, quality journalism in every form — including our newsletters.

Your access to this newsletter ends next week. Become a Times subscriber to enjoy our journalism and to continue to read this newsletter and any others you find interesting.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech With Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Explore more subscriber-only newsletters.

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

Covid Parenting Decisions Make Me Feel Dead Inside

My sense of risk is broken. Here's why.

Covid Parenting Decisions Make Me Feel Dead Inside

Cristina Spanò

There was a brief, shining moment in early summer when the decisions around Covid and my family felt manageable. My husband and I were vaccinated and had returned to some of our favorite indoor activities, like stand-up comedy shows and the gym. Our kids were at a mostly outdoor day camp with procedures we trusted, and the local case rate was low.

But as July bled into August, and the threat of the Delta variant increased and news about breakthrough infections emerged, my understanding of the risk of a given activity for any of us — but especially my 8- and 5-year-olds, who are too young to be vaccinated — went completely haywire.

A mundane question we faced was: Should we let our kid go to a play date with a new friend? Well, let me just check the case rate in this ZIP code and multiply it by the number of pediatric hospitalizations, then subtract the loss of joy and normal socialization my child will undergo by missing out on yet another typical childhood experience.

I would have predicted that this renewed level of uncertainty would make me more anxious, the way I had felt for most of 2020. But instead I have been pretty numb about it all, bombarded with too many statistics and too many confusing choices to feel anything other than dead inside when confronted with a new decision. It's like all my old ways of considering risk levels are completely broken.

I wanted to understand why I was having this response, which felt counterintuitive, so I talked to psychologists who have researched risk. What I learned was that my brain has become so taxed by all the heavy-lifting around virus decisions that I became indifferent out of self preservation. And I'm not alone.

As Paul Slovic, the president of Decision Research, a nonprofit institute that studies decision-making, and a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, explained: Assessing new information is difficult mental work, and "the brain is lazy." It is particularly hard for people to assess risk and act with compassion when we are bombarded with numbers, or as Dr. Slovic put it: "Our feelings don't do arithmetic very well."

ADVERTISEMENT

Citing the work of Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and psychologist, Dr. Slovic explained that we think in two fundamentally different ways about risk: fast, and slow. "Fast thinking is intuitive, relying on our gut feelings, which come to us very quickly when our attention is turned to some issue." The feelings tend to be broadly positive or negative, but they boil down to: Should I be afraid of this thing or not? "When we have feelings that are validated through experience, then experience is a very sophisticated and reliable mechanism for helping us get through our day."

Slow thinking is more analytical. "It's a more deliberative process," said Ellen Peters, the director of the Center for Science Communication Research and a colleague of Dr. Slovic's at the University of Oregon. It involves reading, analyzing numbers and thinking hard. This can lead to better decisions in some scenarios, but sometimes, "The world is so complex, we end up spinning our intellectual wheels," Dr. Peters said. It's also a more recent phenomenon in evolutionary history — our ancient counterparts were not thinking slow, they were worrying about the grizzly bear outside their hut.

Dr. Slovic offered a hypothetical situation to illustrate how our feelings don't always line up with the onslaught of modern facts: We are likely to be quite upset if we hear about two Covid cases at our child's school, but we probably won't be doubly as upset if we hear that there are four cases. As Daniel Kahneman explained in his book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow," "the amount of concern is not adequately sensitive to the probability of harm."

Since we have been dealing with the virus for 18 months, we may no longer react the way we typically do when we hear more bad news. In these scenarios, some parents will overestimate the risk to their children, Dr. Peters said. But others will experience a phenomenon called "psychic numbing," which Delia O'Hara of the American Psychological Association described as the "indifference that sets in when we are confronted with overwhelming calamity." Psychic numbing sounds much more poetic than "dead inside," and I appreciate that I'm not the only one who feels this way, because I no longer trust my emotions to guide me properly.

ADVERTISEMENT

As parents hurtle into the fall, not knowing when a vaccine might be available to our younger kids, how do we cope with uncertainty and get past our numbness? There is no magic solution that will fix our sense of unease — we are in a pandemic still, it's normal to feel uneasy. But having at least some sense of control about the choices we are making is key, Dr. Slovic said. One way to take back that control is "to listen to the experts who you feel are really knowledgeable and you can trust, whether they are local or national," he said. "You should follow their advice and hope for the best." In our case, that means sending our kids back to school in their masks, and crossing our fingers.

Another way to bring back a measure of control over the risk in your life is to try to think ahead of time about what your values are, and to game out moments where multiple values might be in conflict, Dr. Peters said. The example she gave was a family gathering: You might deeply value your children seeing extended family members, but you also do not want your unvaccinated kids to get exposed to Covid. Thinking about these trade-offs early "may seem more of an emotional and cognitive burden, and it is, but you will be steadier in the long run if you think about it ahead of time," she said.

Something I find personally soothing is reminding myself that I can't iron out the danger for my children in every situation. Part of maturing is learning to assess risk, and even though it can be painful to watch your kid bound out into the dangerous world, it's the only way they can grow.

After some discussion, my husband and I did allow our older daughter to go on the play date with that new friend this summer. We felt comfortable with the Covid risk at that point, and our daughter was beyond excited to go to her friend's house. About 10 minutes into the play date, we got a call from the father of the house. The kids had been jumping off the top bunk, and my daughter cut her head on a ceiling fan.

ADVERTISEMENT

Though she bled profusely, she was ultimately fine, and she learned the hard way that jumping off the top bunk is a truly idiotic idea. While we warned her about Covid safety, we didn't think to talk to her about hurling her body from a great height. She had to experience that risk alone.

P.S. Know any curious, opinionated kids? The team behind the The New York Times for Kids print edition is exploring a new iPad app called How To. It teaches you everything from designing an escape room to baking a cookie pizza to inventing a new language. If there are 8- to 12-year-old kids in your life who might enjoy being early testers, we'd love for them to get involved. Sign up here.

Want More on Kids, Covid and Risk?

  • Are you wondering why vaccine approval hasn't happened yet for kids under 12? Dr. Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center, explains the process in this Q. and A. from the American Medical Association.
  • In August, Amanda Mull in The Atlantic also considered the risks and trade-offs of various behaviors now that we're dealing with the Delta variant, and I very much identify with this sentence: "If you have read all this hoping to get some solid answers on what you should be doing and now feel like it would have been easier for me to publish, say, a shruggy emoji, I sympathize."
  • One point that comes up repeatedly in Paul Slovic's research is the notion that sometimes literature, art and photographs help us grapple with risk and tragedy much better than numbers do. I was thinking about that notion when I came across this 2002 essay from the late Marjorie Williams about explaining random tragedy to her 9-year-old son. The kicker felt especially resonant for parenting in the Covid era: "Time and chance happen to us all, darling boy, and even grown-ups can bear it only a little bit at a time."

Subscribe Today

We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times with this special offer.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let's celebrate the tiny victories.

I bought my kids (ages 4 and 5) a couple of rolls of cheap wrapping paper and some kids' scissors. They can spend close to an hour wrapping their own toys and books as "gifts" for me and their dad — and it's one of the few times they actually manage to work together without screaming and fighting! A great payoff for a small investment! — Liz Pease, Salisbury, Mass.

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

2021年9月14日 星期二

On Tech: The myth of Big Tech competence

Facebook's botched V.I.P. system shows that even tech superstars can suffer from bureaucratic quagmires.

For Times Subscribers

View in browsernytimes.com
New York Times logo
Technology

September 14, 2021

Newsletter Notice

Beginning next week, the On Tech newsletter will be available only to Times subscribers. Subscribe to The Times to continue receiving it.

A selection of our newsletters will soon be reserved for Times subscribers. Subscribe now for $1/week for access to Times journalism and all of our newsletters — to follow your interests and discover new ones.

The myth of Big Tech competence

Facebook's botched V.I.P. system shows that even tech superstars can suffer from bureaucratic quagmires.

Timo Lenzen

We expect a lot from rich, smart and powerful technology companies, but they aren't immune to mismanagement. And when genius fails, it can be jarring to those companies' employees and destructive to the people left in the wake of the mistakes.

A Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) yesterday detailed the ways that Facebook essentially lets influential people flout the company's rules, which apply to everyone else. In one example cited in the article, Facebook initially allowed the soccer star Neymar to post nude photos of a woman without her permission, despite its rules against such behavior.

It has been clear for some time that Facebook has given preferential treatment to some high-profile people, including Donald Trump. What The Journal's reporting shows is that Facebook's use of kid gloves for V.I.P.s is a systemic practice that affected millions of people, that Facebook mismanaged the execution of this policy and that the special treatment has resisted attempts inside Facebook to dismantle it.

Anyone who has worked for a large organization has probably had a taste of what seems to have happened at Facebook: The company laid out a logical plan for influential users that was bungled when enforced — and then the company was unwilling or incapable of fully fixing what went wrong.

Tales like Facebook's botched V.I.P. system, Amazon's chaotic management of warehouse workers and Apple's repeated false starts in building a car show that even superstar companies can suffer from the bureaucratic quagmires and muddled decision-making that afflict many large institutions.

What's different about the tech giants is that those companies seem to believe in their own supreme competence — and so does much of the public. That makes their missteps more glaring, and perhaps makes the companies more reluctant to own up to their mistakes.

The basic idea of Facebook's V.I.P. policy — giving a second look at decisions that affect high-profile accounts — makes sense.

The company knows that in the crush of billions of Facebook and Instagram posts each day, its computer systems and workers make mistakes. Facebook's computers might delete an innocuous photo from a child's birthday party because the system misread it as sexual imagery that violates the company's rules.

Giving another look to posts by influential people isn't necessarily a bad idea; unfortunately, the policy hasn't been carried out very well. According to The Journal, because Facebook doesn't deploy enough moderators or other resources to review all posts, many teams "chose not to enforce the rules with high-profile accounts at all." Got that? V.I.P.s were exempt from the company's rules less out of malicious intent than neglect.

The Journal reported that Facebook knew for years that it was unfair and unwise to let high-profile people operate under a different, more lax rule book, but the number of people who were effectively exempt from punishment kept growing. The article said that at least 45 teams at Facebook started adding names to the V.I.P. list until it reached at least 5.8 million people last year.

I will acknowledge that at Facebook's scale of billions of users, none of its principles or practices will be perfect. Facebook and its former head of civic integrity said that the company had made changes to address some of the problems of its V.I.P. list. But The Journal's reporting ultimately points to a more fundamental error: A large organization displayed stunning mismanagement, and could not or would not fully fix its problems.

It's not shocking when Congress or the cable company act incompetently. But we see tech giants with gazillion dollars and big brains as special and all-seeing and as being smarter than everyone else. That makes it feel more surprising when tech giants mess up worker pay and won't admit it, as Google did, or fumble for years trying to sell groceries, as Amazon has done.

Tech companies including Google, Facebook and Amazon have seemingly invincible power, but their growing wealth is not stopping these giants from also, at times, being ridiculously inept.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Reminder: This newsletter will soon be reserved for Times subscribers.

Your access to the On Tech newsletter ends next week. Subscribe now to keep receiving it and to enjoy all the benefits of being a Times subscriber.

Before we go …

Hugs to this

This wallaby named Pocket would like to remind you to eat your leafy green veggies.

Enjoy this newsletter? Subscribe to keep receiving it.

We've reserved a selection of newsletters, including this one, for Times subscribers. Subscriber support ensures that we have the resources to deliver original, quality journalism in every form — including our newsletters.

Your access to this newsletter ends next week. Become a Times subscriber to enjoy our journalism and to continue to read this newsletter and any others you find interesting.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech With Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Explore more subscriber-only newsletters.

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/